RISE AND PROGRESS OF ZOOLOGY 3 



another epoch we find that original research has 

 been abandoned, and the technicalities of system 

 and nomenclature alone regarded. To meet the 

 first difficulty, and to preserve, nevertheless, a 

 connected narrative, it seems advisable to treat 

 the subject historically; and pre-supposing certain 

 epochs in this science, to detail the peculiar charac- 

 teristics of each. This will of course lead to some 

 enquiry into the merits of those who have successively 

 promoted or retarded the progress of knowledge ; or 

 who have been the founders of systems and methods, 

 which for a time have endured, and then been laid 

 aside. The revolutions of science are almost as 

 frequent, and often more Extraordinary, than those 

 of political institutions. Both are results, not so 

 much of the talents or efforts of large communities 

 acting simultaneously, as of the influence of some 

 one individual, whose qualities, good or bad, have 

 not unfrequently worked the overthrow of laws, and 

 modes of thinking, which had long been supported 

 by the voice of a nation. It is, therefore, the part 

 of the natural not less than of the political historian, 

 to trace the causes of such revolutions, as far as 

 possible, to their sources ; and not to rest contented 

 with the bare enumeration of the facts themselves, 

 or of the results which followed. 



(3.) Nor is the above the only difficulty of the 

 task before us. To estimate aright the progress of 

 this science, it is essential to draw a just distinction 

 between analogical research and systematic arrange- 

 ment; or, in other words, between the minute in- 

 vestigation of the properties and characters of an 

 animal, and its subsequent arrangement among other 

 r 2 



